Gee I thought she would be a great national leader, you mean she isn't fluently bilingual in both official languages. I've heard her hyped up as being the right type to lead way more than I ever heard people talking about people like Libby Davis. I had presumed that somewhere in her life she must have made time to do an in depth language program do obtain fluency in her third language.

Unfrtunately, there is not yet an Indigenous Supreme Court judge because there is a de facto requirement for bilingualism and familiarity with civil law.

‘Personally I’d like the court to have propel familiar with common, civil and Indigenous legal traditions. And ideally all justices should understand all three, but that’s much harder and current numbers on the Indigenous legal traditions are likely 0/9.

There is a joke that you can tell who in the West and Ontario and Atlantic Canada wants to be a Supreme by looking at which judges are taking French lessons.

Unfrtunately, there is not yet an Indigenous Supreme Court judge because there is a de facto requirement for bilingualism and familiarity with civil law.

Only 3 out of 9 justices need to be familiar with civil law. If it were all 9 pretty well the whole Supreme Court would have to be from Quebec. I also don't see that bilingualism, in itself, discriminates against Indigenous candidates. Are Indigenous lower court judges less likely to be bilingual? I think the problem is just that there aren't many of them.

Unfrtunately, there is not yet an Indigenous Supreme Court judge because there is a de facto requirement for bilingualism and familiarity with civil law.

Only 3 out of 9 justices need to be familiar with civil law. If it were all 9 pretty well the whole Supreme Court would have to be from Quebec. I also don't see that bilingualism, in itself, discriminates against Indigenous candidates. Are Indigenous lower court judges less likely to be bilingual? I think the problem is just that there aren't many of them.

Many of them are bilingual, some multilingual, they just don't speak French.

I think that where we see a serious lack of representation we have a responsibility to find a way to solve it. It was important for French to be given official status and protection. The justification is that they are one of the two founding nations of Canada, which was founded on indigeneous lands. If the system isn't condusive to having one of the nine be indigenous then we need to expand the court to create a spot for an indigeneous judge.

"Amidst the ceaseless mayhem, Jody Wilson Raybould's banishment may have an upside: As an independent in Commons, now she can speak out about a completely different, arguably more troubling example of the Trudeau government's disrespect for the rule of law - on behalf of a foreign power aiming to break Canadian laws and regulations, and to resist Ottawa's aid in trashing international conventions Canada is obliged to uphold..."

"Amidst the ceaseless mayhem, Jody Wilson Raybould's banishment may have an upside: As an independent in Commons, now she can speak out about a completely different, arguably more troubling example of the Trudeau government's disrespect for the rule of law - on behalf of a foreign power aiming to break Canadian laws and regulations, and to resist Ottawa's aid in trashing international conventions Canada is obliged to uphold..."

JWR is not going to involve herself with this and it is certainly not bigger than the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

"Amidst the ceaseless mayhem, Jody Wilson Raybould's banishment may have an upside: As an independent in Commons, now she can speak out about a completely different, arguably more troubling example of the Trudeau government's disrespect for the rule of law - on behalf of a foreign power aiming to break Canadian laws and regulations, and to resist Ottawa's aid in trashing international conventions Canada is obliged to uphold..."

JWR is not going to involve herself with this and it is certainly not bigger than the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

You do not know. You cannot know.

At issue is whether JWR ends up in another party torching any bridge back to the Liberals or as an independent trying to keep a lid on things. You do not know what she knows or has to say.

Anyone speaking as if they know this is something or is not something is just making it up -- that is -- unless they are JWR.

Do try to add "I think" or something when you are pulling wild speculation out of your head. Statements of fact should have at least some basis.

Well here's a pretty good why not. Now there's nothing wrong with an MP visiting local religious congregations but note that the organizer is openly supportive of the policies of the current Israeli government.

"Amidst the ceaseless mayhem, Jody Wilson Raybould's banishment may have an upside: As an independent in Commons, now she can speak out about a completely different, arguably more troubling example of the Trudeau government's disrespect for the rule of law - on behalf of a foreign power aiming to break Canadian laws and regulations, and to resist Ottawa's aid in trashing international conventions Canada is obliged to uphold..."

JWR is not going to involve herself with this and it is certainly not bigger than the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

You do not know. You cannot know.

At issue is whether JWR ends up in another party torching any bridge back to the Liberals or as an independent trying to keep a lid on things. You do not know what she knows or has to say.

Anyone speaking as if they know this is something or is not something is just making it up -- that is -- unless they are JWR.

Do try to add "I think" or something when you are pulling wild speculation out of your head. Statements of fact should have at least some basis.

Please. this is a big problem here.

It is not a big problem unless you believe in fortune-tellers in which case you have a bigger problem than what I write. Any reasonably logical person knows that I can't predict the future.

I see no reason at all to suggest that she will involve herself in this issue. She fought tooth and nail to remain a member of the Liberal party and even after being ejected she still declared her loyalty to the Liberals, just not Trudeau. Aside from her comments on the SNC-Lavalin case she has remained silent. I think there is good reason to believe she will not be popping her head out to condemn Israeli wine labels on wine from occupied lands.

JWR did not want to use the directive to order a DPA for SNC Lavalin and she didn't want to be shifted out of the AG position because of it. She believed that to be interference with her prosecutorial independence as AG.

This did not transform her into a social justice warrior. She is concerned with indigenous rights in Canada and working within the system to promote those rights. I have not heard her speak out against trampling the rights of indigenous people in BC who do not want the pipeline threatening their territory.

She doesn't have to be either social justice warrior or selfish capitalist. I really feel that people are blinded by her being an indigenous woman who rose to new heights. She is indigenous royalty. To question is to attack.

”JWR did not want to use the directive to order a DPA for SNC Lavalin and she didn't want to be shifted out of the AG position because of it.”

The word “want” implies choice as though it was a choice of hers not to do so.

SNC Lavelin did not qualify for a DPA agreement. The magnitude of their charges was far to severe to qualify for a DPA agreement. I guess you just don’t understand words like legal criteria and parameters, unethical, political interference, arguably criminal, abuse of power, internationally damning and embarassing, career ending consequences, potential disbarment.

You talk with childlike simplicity as though it was a simple matter of choice on her part but she decided to be difficult just because. She just didn’t want to do it so you say.

”JWR did not want to use the directive to order a DPA for SNC Lavalin and she didn't want to be shifted out of the AG position because of it.”

The word “want” implies choice as though it was a choice of hers not to do so.

SNC Lavelin did not qualify for a DPA agreement. The magnitude of their charges was far to severe to qualify for a DPA agreement. I guess you just don’t understand words like legal criteria and parameters, unethical, political interference, arguably criminal, abuse of power, internationally damning and embarassing, career ending consequences, potential disbarment.

You talk with childlike simplicity as though it was a simple matter of choice on her part but she decided to be difficult just because. She just didn’t want to do it so you say.

The DPA has not been ruled out yet. It can even be granted after a trial begins. JWR did not say they didn't qualify. If she was so certain they could not qualify why not consult outside counsel and report back that it would be illegal to give them a DPA? She could have said that in September. She didn't say it because it isn't true. It was a judgement call that the independent prosecutor made and JWR did not see any legal error so she didn't want to overturn the decision. If it would have been illegal to do so she would have just said sorry, it woudn't be legal, unless of course she was playing games. I don't think she was playing games therefore I don't believe it would be illegal for SNC to get a DPA.

As per JWR nothing illegal happened. RCMP haven't commented but I don't think they are investigating.

I think JWR showed integrity. There was a reason she didn't want to put her name to the directive in the Gazette. I'm not suggesting she was just being difficult. She definitely did not think it would be appropriate. She didn't want to write a reason she didn't agree with. Given her professional status that is entirely reasonable on her part.

It is also entirely reasonable that she suspected she would be moved out of the position so that an AG could be appointed that would give SNC Lavalin a DPA. She didn't want that to happen.

There is no doubt in my mind that is exactly what they were doing with the cabinet shuffle no matter what lame excuse they made up. It doesn't matter. The PM has the absolute power to change cabinet appointments without giving any reasons as to why they are making changes so Trudeau cannot be attacked on that from a legal perspective.

The inappropriate pressure thing is wishy washy too because as Justice Minister she is part of cabinet and Trudeau does have the right to question her on justice issues. He can't direct the AG to make a particular decision. That doesn't mean he can't argue for a particular decision. It was fine to ask for her reasoning and even to ask that she consult outside counsel.

To me the moment it crossed the red line was when Wernick said that Trudeau would get it done one way or another. But Wernick said that, not Trudeau, and I doubt Trudeau dictated the exact words. That was Wernick speaking. That is why he resigned.

In a court of law Wernick would say he was giving his opinion on Trudeau's mood not passing along a message.

Unless JWR is the source of the original leak she didn't intend to go public with her accusations so it isn't like she planned to confront Trudeau. Were it not for the leak we wouldn't be hearing any of this (at this time) and Philpott and JWR would still be in cabinet.

This piece by Brian Greenspan is a travesty. Jaw-droppingly, he brazenly claims access to AGs and Deputy AGs (in Ontario?) ignoring the DPP system federally was put in 10 yrs ago to try to minimize role of pressure on and insider access to AG.

Well here's a pretty good why not. Now there's nothing wrong with an MP visiting local religious congregations but note that the organizer is openly supportive of the policies of the current Israeli government.

I think you're right. Yet another warning sign of Israeli influence over our political system and the obvious kowtowing of parties and politicians overlooking our laws rather than having the courage to face this problem. It's hardly an insignificant issue and it's wrong that it should be this way. No surprise to find Freeland's 'Global Affairs' involved either.

In a court of law Wernick would say he was giving his opinion on Trudeau's mood not passing along a message.

This is a good example where you again profess knowledge that is beyond you.

In a court of law it matters little. It was an agent-principal relationship and Trudeau is responsible. In a court of law the fact that Trudeau has not denied this (he denies the pressure but not the intent). Trudeau never resolved the issues raised. You are splitting hairs.

"Amidst the ceaseless mayhem, Jody Wilson Raybould's banishment may have an upside: As an independent in Commons, now she can speak out about a completely different, arguably more troubling example of the Trudeau government's disrespect for the rule of law - on behalf of a foreign power aiming to break Canadian laws and regulations, and to resist Ottawa's aid in trashing international conventions Canada is obliged to uphold..."

JWR is not going to involve herself with this and it is certainly not bigger than the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

You do not know. You cannot know.

At issue is whether JWR ends up in another party torching any bridge back to the Liberals or as an independent trying to keep a lid on things. You do not know what she knows or has to say.

Anyone speaking as if they know this is something or is not something is just making it up -- that is -- unless they are JWR.

Do try to add "I think" or something when you are pulling wild speculation out of your head. Statements of fact should have at least some basis.

Please. this is a big problem here.

It is not a big problem unless you believe in fortune-tellers in which case you have a bigger problem than what I write. Any reasonably logical person knows that I can't predict the future.

I see no reason at all to suggest that she will involve herself in this issue. She fought tooth and nail to remain a member of the Liberal party and even after being ejected she still declared her loyalty to the Liberals, just not Trudeau. Aside from her comments on the SNC-Lavalin case she has remained silent. I think there is good reason to believe she will not be popping her head out to condemn Israeli wine labels on wine from occupied lands.

JWR did not want to use the directive to order a DPA for SNC Lavalin and she didn't want to be shifted out of the AG position because of it. She believed that to be interference with her prosecutorial independence as AG.

This did not transform her into a social justice warrior. She is concerned with indigenous rights in Canada and working within the system to promote those rights. I have not heard her speak out against trampling the rights of indigenous people in BC who do not want the pipeline threatening their territory.

She doesn't have to be either social justice warrior or selfish capitalist. I really feel that people are blinded by her being an indigenous woman who rose to new heights. She is indigenous royalty. To question is to attack.

I am saying -- I think clearly enough -- that there are things that people can assert as a fact based on some knoweldge and you were writing as if you had some kind of basis even though this is not possible here.

There is a strong possibility that JWR will not be in the same party as Trudeau come fall and you have no idea what she knows. Your statements are groundless.

In a court of law Wernick would say he was giving his opinion on Trudeau's mood not passing along a message.

This is a good example where you again profess knowledge that is beyond you.

In a court of law it matters little. It was an agent-principal relationship and Trudeau is responsible. In a court of law the fact that Trudeau has not denied this (he denies the pressure but not the intent). Trudeau never resolved the issues raised. You are splitting hairs.

No, I'm saying unless you can PROVE that Trudeau did something illegal it will blow over. There hasn't even been an investigation. At the end of the day when explaining what happened to someone who isn't that interested the best that can be said is that SNC Lavalin paid bribes to Gadaffi and family then tried to pressure the AG into giving Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement so that Lavalin could still bid on federal contracts and so they wouldn't move 9000 jobs out of Canada.

Most people will not gasp in shock and horror.

If on the other hand the RCMP stated they were opening an investigation into Trudeau illegally pressuring the AG, or Trudeau having an investment in SNC Lavalin the story would have legs.

Accusing Trudeau of trying to win votes in Quebec by saving SNC Lavalin jobs most people will consider that par for the course for all politicians.

But back to JWR and her future. So far, as I expected, she has not made a statement on the labeling of occupied territory wines as Israeli which I agree is morally corrupt to accept.

All kinds of expectations are being placed on JWR because they believe her sole reason for doing this was to protect prosecutorial independence and she sacrificed herself to do it. You say she isn't being made out to be Joan of Arc? I say she is. People here are now expecting grand progressive moves from her in perpetuity.

I'm not saying she is a bad person I'm saying she is a human person therefore has personal and professional motivations as well as wanting to "do the right thing". She will pick her own battles not stand for every progressive cause or even every indigenous cause and that does not make her a bad person.

The expectation that she will speak out on occupied territory wines is rooted in the belief that being an indigenous woman supportive of Canadian indigenous peoples she must by extension support the battles of all battles of all indigenous peoples and be willing to speak out on it. That isn't even the case in Canada. She hasn't supported the indigenous fights against pipelines so far.

She has remained firmly in support of the Liberals while condemning Trudeau. She has telegraphed to people in power that she supports centrist policies. She is a social liberal fiscal conservative. When she dismisses the possibility of going Conservative it is because of their racist dog whistles and treatment of indigenous peoples not a condemnation of their economic philosophy.

In a court of law Wernick would say he was giving his opinion on Trudeau's mood not passing along a message.

This is a good example where you again profess knowledge that is beyond you.

In a court of law it matters little. It was an agent-principal relationship and Trudeau is responsible. In a court of law the fact that Trudeau has not denied this (he denies the pressure but not the intent). Trudeau never resolved the issues raised. You are splitting hairs.

No, I'm saying unless you can PROVE that Trudeau did something illegal it will blow over. There hasn't even been an investigation. At the end of the day when explaining what happened to someone who isn't that interested the best that can be said is that SNC Lavalin paid bribes to Gadaffi and family then tried to pressure the AG into giving Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement so that Lavalin could still bid on federal contracts and so they wouldn't move 9000 jobs out of Canada.

Most people will not gasp in shock and horror.

If on the other hand the RCMP stated they were opening an investigation into Trudeau illegally pressuring the AG, or Trudeau having an investment in SNC Lavalin the story would have legs.

Accusing Trudeau of trying to win votes in Quebec by saving SNC Lavalin jobs most people will consider that par for the course for all politicians.

But back to JWR and her future. So far, as I expected, she has not made a statement on the labeling of occupied territory wines as Israeli which I agree is morally corrupt to accept.

All kinds of expectations are being placed on JWR because they believe her sole reason for doing this was to protect prosecutorial independence and she sacrificed herself to do it. You say she isn't being made out to be Joan of Arc? I say she is. People here are now expecting grand progressive moves from her in perpetuity.

I'm not saying she is a bad person I'm saying she is a human person therefore has personal and professional motivations as well as wanting to "do the right thing". She will pick her own battles not stand for every progressive cause or even every indigenous cause and that does not make her a bad person.

The expectation that she will speak out on occupied territory wines is rooted in the belief that being an indigenous woman supportive of Canadian indigenous peoples she must by extension support the battles of all battles of all indigenous peoples and be willing to speak out on it. That isn't even the case in Canada. She hasn't supported the indigenous fights against pipelines so far.

She has remained firmly in support of the Liberals while condemning Trudeau. She has telegraphed to people in power that she supports centrist policies. She is a social liberal fiscal conservative. When she dismisses the possibility of going Conservative it is because of their racist dog whistles and treatment of indigenous peoples not a condemnation of their economic philosophy.

People don't fit in neat left right boxes.

Pondering -- at the first statement you make above. It is astonishing in its political naivete. By "prove" what do you mean? The criminal standard of without a doubt? The civil standard of preponderance of evidence? The political standard of what each individual believes multiplied by how many times they hear it and how easy it is to understand, divided by their level of anger on other issues plus amplified by political opponents and money minus any good economic news? Yeah, prediction complicated like that?

The notion of proof is related to exhaustive review of all facts until we can determine a result. Politics never operates that way. It is the marketing of some simplified version of the story which may or may not even be true. If proof would be definitive in politics there would be no debate about climate change.

Things do not blow over in politics once they fit a pattern or narrative. Trudeau now has criticisms that are woven into narratives. This is just as true as his previous status as a celebrity of light when there was a narrative of sunny ways that actually kept the criticisms in the dark. In politics a person rises with a positive narrative such as that Trudeau enjoyed in 2015-2016. Despite the Trudeau metaphor, the bloom is not perennial as a rose and once the bloom comes off it almost never grows back.

Trudeau is not suffering from a single controversy he can defend against. He is in that position where almost everything sticks and nothing really blows over. Your confidence that this can blow over is misplaced. There is no mechanism even for amnesiac voters to forget this in a few months with Philpott at least and maybe JWR considering running in the election. The stench of autocracy emanating from Trudeau is unlikely to dissipate given that he has always been considered by many to be a privileged out of touch person who gained his status because of a connection to his father who was well known as much for his arrogance as his brilliance.

This is bookended by a straw man "People don't fit in neat left right boxes." Why didn't you just say "rain is wet"? Did anyone even mention anything about left- right politics in this case?

Philpott and Wilson Raybould may have considered staying in the party if Trudeau's defenders had not demonstrated that he is untouchable from within the party.

There could have been hope for a post-Trudeau Liberal party they could be in if only they were quiet enough and stood out this election. It could be that Trudeau's defenders by showing more power to the King have made these two understand that Trudeau cannot be out-waited. It may have been a reminder that Trudeau is not going to retire and the Liberal party is unlikely to kick him out, after all they owe him for digging them out of their political graves. Trudeau does not ahve a career to go to on par with this and he is too young to consider the peak of his career has passed. The loyalty to Trudeau may have produced a calculation that if Wilson Raybould and Philpott want to continue in politics, it will not be in the federal Liberal party or where that party has any reach of influence.

This conclusion may lead both to run for other parties. Ironically the act of running for other parties could be just the tipping point that makes Trudeau vulnerable after all. It could be the thing that damages Trudeau such that he no longer can get the respectable finish that allows him to remain opposition leader in defeat. It may be that these two are in the paradox that Trudeau is not vulnerable if they try to wait him out but is vulnerable if the leave the party such that they cannot take advantage of his vulnerability.

I wondered if Philpott would consdier going back to her previous career, although she is saying that she has a taste for politics so she seems to have dampened that idea. Wilson Raybould is a politician and wants to make change there. Certainly she has credentials in law but she wants to use them to make changes politically. It is hard to imagine her being out of politics. Philpott is too young to retire yet older than Trudeau so cannot wait him out. Both seem to be idelistic and this experience may have led them to dedicate their career to making a difference -- that is they may be more idealistic and determined than they were six months ago.

I do not know how either of them could fit well in another party, however. Certainly, they may feel closer to the Greens and NDP than to the Conservatives and the Greens and NDP would love to make the score. In the long term they have to know that fitting in to these parties is not a certain thing, even if it might be their only alternative. Electoral success is also not guaranteed and both parties are weaker than the Liberals. This is why I wondered if they might consider provincial politics which could even be a better fit for Philpott given the provincial jurisdiction over health and for JWR the provincial NDP is a big enough tent that she could almost imediately end up in provincial cabinet. It is not clear that either would consider that this avenue delivers on the reasons they went into federal politics.

I think there is no easy path for either and so it is hard to predict where they will go. It does seem that fading away is not on the mind of either.

she was a very disappointing Minister of Justice. Not only did she not revise any of Harper’s pro-prosecution criminal legislation, she promoted Bill c 75 which is in the Harper tradition.

she also wanted the conservative Judge Joyal as Chief Justice of Canada.

like so many Liberals she is a faux Progressive.

as bad as Trudeau’s role in the Lavalin debacle was, JWR conducted herself in an erratic and unethical manner as well.

as for those who suggest she shd lead the NDP you May have been smoking the stuff she only partially and begrudgingly made part legal.

I agree with this but it leaves out a few other items. She enacted a bill for assisted suicide that like pot is almost as bad as regime it replaced. It like some of the pot laws will face Charter challenges and IMO the assisted suicide law will not meet the standard that the SCC set out when it ordered the government to rectify the legal regime. She also refused to take proactive action after the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals ongoing and still recurring rulings that her government is discriminating against indigenous children.

I am saying -- I think clearly enough -- that there are things that people can assert as a fact based on some knoweldge and you were writing as if you had some kind of basis even though this is not possible here.

There is a strong possibility that JWR will not be in the same party as Trudeau come fall and you have no idea what she knows. Your statements are groundless.

And I am hearing you. Statements about what people will or will not do in the future are clearly opinions not statements of fact.

For example, if I say Trudeau is running for re-election in October that is not fact. We know this because the election hasn't even been called therefore it is not possible for that to be a fact. Whether or not someone has sufficient cause to hold an opinion is a matter of opinion. It was suggested here that she could step in on the Palestinian issue of wine labeling. I don't think she has done anything to suggest she is now going to begin standing up for Palestinians. Nothing in her history suggests it. I also don't think she is about to take on the EE fight or even the TMX fight because nothing in her history suggests that is her trajectory.

She may well go NDP. Their policies are not that far off from the Liberals. I didn't say she wouldn't. I said that up to the moment she was ejected she was trying to remain a Liberal and wanted to run for re-election as a Liberal. Philosophically she is a Liberal. She stated so more than once herself. She could go for a provincial Liberal leadership role. She could involve herself with indigenous rights. She could join the NDP but I doubt it.

I think there is a much greater chance that Jane Philpott will go NDP.

When I say "JWR isn't going to take up the cause of Italian wine labeling" it should be obvious that I am expressing an opinion not a fact about what JWR will or will not do in future. You don't like the way I phrase myself. You'll just have to live with it because I am not going to put I think or I believe or in my opinion before expressing my thoughts or opinions. Any adult who doesn't get that the future can't be predicted won't be involved in a conversation on whether or not JWR will involve herself in the occupied territories wine labeling issue.

You are free to argue otherwise. You are free to point out every time I express my opinion about the future in statement form. I will continue to point out that I am not a fortune teller nor to I claim to be therefore it is understood that I am expressing an opinion not fact.

I have no problem taking a ride on the merry-go-round once in a while but right now I have a celebration to attend.

One possibility is that Philpott and JWR wait it out until this upcoming election is over.

If the Liberals get decimated, as some people are suggesting will happen in October, the Liberals will be looking around for new leadership, and then JWR & Philpott can make their move by campaigning for honest leadership of the party.

she was a very disappointing Minister of Justice. Not only did she not revise any of Harper’s pro-prosecution criminal legislation, she promoted Bill c 75 which is in the Harper tradition.

she also wanted the conservative Judge Joyal as Chief Justice of Canada.

like so many Liberals she is a faux Progressive.

as bad as Trudeau’s role in the Lavalin debacle was, JWR conducted herself in an erratic and unethical manner as well.

as for those who suggest she shd lead the NDP you May have been smoking the stuff she only partially and begrudgingly made part legal.

I agree with this but it leaves out a few other items. She enacted a bill for assisted suicide that like pot is almost as bad as regime it replaced. It like some of the pot laws will face Charter challenges and IMO the assisted suicide law will not meet the standard that the SCC set out when it ordered the government to rectify the legal regime. She also refused to take proactive action after the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals ongoing and still recurring rulings that her government is discriminating against indigenous children.

Yes. It's great that she took on Trudeau and has damaged his electoral chances. Just looking at the broader picture does not put her firmly on the left or mean that she is progressive.

Pondering, Trudeau was nominated on August 19, 2018 as the Liberal candidate in Papineau. It was reported widely. So it is a fact that he is running for re-election.

But what if he is arrested for his part in the SNC-Lavalin affair? What if he gets cancer and wants to spend the rest of his days with family? It isn't fact until it happens. We can reasonably infer from his signing those papers that he wants to run but even that isn't a fact because we can't read his mind.

One possibility is that Philpott and JWR wait it out until this upcoming election is over.

If the Liberals get decimated, as some people are suggesting will happen in October, the Liberals will be looking around for new leadership, and then JWR & Philpott can make their move by campaigning for honest leadership of the party.

I could see that especially for JWR. I don't think Trudeau will tank that badly but he could.

Power and Politics reported that JWR attended Elizabeth May's wedding today. It could be a political nothing but P&P also reported there is some speculation that she may be in negotiations to join the Greens.

Power and Politics reported that JWR attended Elizabeth May's wedding today. It could be a political nothing but P&P also reported there is some speculation that she may be in negotiations to join the Greens.

I would not read too much into this. Sure it is possible but also possible that this is one of her across the aisle friendships. I have spoken to many insiders and know many of the people (at a bit of distance). I realize many dislike May on this site but she is well regarded by many MPs in all other parties. She is personable, friendly to many people on the Hill. It would not surpirse me to see many political adversaries there...

Power and Politics reported that JWR attended Elizabeth May's wedding today. It could be a political nothing but P&P also reported there is some speculation that she may be in negotiations to join the Greens.

I would not read too much into this. Sure it is possible but also possible that this is one of her across the aisle friendships.

That's why I said it could be a political nothing. On the other hand, she did not deny the possibility when asked and admitted she has had conversations with May on her options. While she may well be a just a friend, politicians do not like to steal their own thunder by informally announcing a major policy or change at somebody's else's event, even if they have made a decision.

“I have said I am keeping my options open. I have had several conversations with Elizabeth, no decision has been made yet,” she said.

I looked up on Wiki and Elizabeth May is at the age where she may be considering retirement as a possibility. If that is so and she is married she may wish to retire from politics and take it easier and spend more time with her family.

If the PEI Greens perform as the polls have suggested and win enough seats to form government tonight, an announcement by JWR that she is joining the Greens later this week or next, on the eve of the Nanaimo Ladysmith byelection, could be earth-shattering. I'm not saying that this is what she is going to do but I would note that she has demonstrated an excellent sense of political timing to date.

If the PEI Greens perform as the polls have suggested and win enough seats to form government tonight, an announcement by JWR that she is joining the Greens later this week or next, on the eve of the Nanaimo Ladysmith byelection, could be earth-shattering. I'm not saying that this is what she is going to do but I would note that she has demonstrated an excellent sense of political timing to date.

This is certainly true and possible.

It is also true that the animosity between the Greens and the Liberals is less than betwen the Liberals and the NDP. It is more likely possible that she could return to the Liberals from the Greens later if things change in either party.

If both Philpott and JWR were to move to the Greens that would instantly give a lot of wind in the sails of the Greens.

Some of the people who are on her side have cosniderable animosity towards the NDP -- more than average for the Liberals.